User talk:Netoholic

If you have a question about recent template changes that don't look right, please clear your cache before complaining or reverting.

Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta

Add a new section

Motivation

"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts."

– Sir Philip Sidney (1554 - 1586)

"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.

– Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Simple Logo

Hi,

creating a transparent logo from a non-transparent one is a lot harder than just using the existing transparent one as a template. I would ask you to keep in place the Simple Logo I created, in order to maintain the distinction between the projects, until a better replacement can be found.-Eloquence * 19:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

a new proposal

Thought you might be interested: Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Proposal 2. – ugen64 15:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warning, but not for its content, but for what it revealed; I have a doppleganger at User:GoIbez. Note the capital i instead of lower case L. Thus far all he's done is make redirs to my pages, and edit your talk page; how do I find out this person's IP, so I can determine if I know them? --Golbez 20:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:まみぶ

Yeah, I was just about to correct that error, but you beat me to it. This guy is really beginning to tick me off. —Lifeisunfair 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" templates

The new code causes the icon to always remain in the upper left-hand corner of the box (a trait that's especially visible when viewed with a text size larger than the default). I recently realized that my sample versions contained this problem, but I was under the impression that you had corrected it. (Your previous revisions looked fine.) I wish that I could help more, but I really don't know very much about this type of coding. —Lifeisunfair 21:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At most resolutions, everything looks fine being that is just one line. Even at small resolutions or with large text, the effect is minimal (compared to many other things that look bad) and I think that top and left aligning it is good. Removing it from a table is a trade-off for those of us that will want to remove the box and colors in our personal CSS settings. I think it is very workable. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is far from unacceptable, and I realize that there are other factors in play (which is why, after noticing this flaw in my examples, I didn't ask you not to implement the changes). I was just hoping that you might be able to somehow eliminate this issue without compromising anything else. If not, I understand. —Lifeisunfair 21:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to work on it. Just gotta find all the right balances. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for investing the time and effort. —Lifeisunfair 21:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste repair (Pro Tour)

Can someone please merge back Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering) into Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 04:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

This has been completed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kelly Martin 05:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh...

... sorry, didn't realise you were converting! Will our templates be uniform? that is my only concern. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reqimage

Hi, did you by chance read the discussion on the layout at Template locations discussion. As we were discussing its change, and that users should discuss such changes before making them. Thanks. ∞Who ?¿? 08:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why accept big and ugly when there is consensus that it's trash. tweak it later

Please be WP:Civil. The reasoning is that it is still in discussion. Part of that discussion is layout and design. If each person drastically changed each template, then there would be a revert war. As there already was, hence the reason for the discussion. I proposed its change for quite some time before changing the template. I have no problem chaning the template, but drastically changing it to a version that is not on the discussion, just means that it will be edited again later. Will you revert back to your version because you dont like the proposed version that had consensus? This is the only reason I reverted the change. I left a kind note on why I did, along with where the discussion is being held. These kind of things can be avoided with communication, which you did not do before chaning the template. Until we actually close the discussion, it would be nice to actually participate in the discusion before chaning the template. I am reverting it back, not out of spite, but only because it is currently in discussion. Thank you. ∞Who ?¿? 08:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

zero people like this version, except Who, who created the monstrosity

I do not appreciate the rude comments. If you simply do not like the template, then thats fine. I have not been rude to you in the least. I reverted the template back to the semi-original version, that IS on the proposed discussion. You have not wanted to even participate in this, since I politely asked you to, instead you insisted on just changing the template to your liking. I at least took the time to discuss everything, as well as proposing the change to the template, to the entire Wiki community. I already stated that the template should probably be changed if it was going to be used ont the talk pages, but I was waiting for other input, as one individual should NOT make this determaination. ∞Who ?¿? 08:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{reqimage}} has been that "monstrous piece of ugliness" for over a month. Why do you need to get into an revert war over that template when you have not participated at all in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template locations#Design and layout issues, nor have you participated at all in the discussion at Template talk:Reqimage until today. I HATE revert wars, and to have you paraphrase me as the justification for this most resent revert war has me doubly pissed off. BlankVerse ∅ 08:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neto - if the template goes on the talk page (and almost everyone believes its should) then it must use the standard talk page template. →Raul654 15:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Advert

Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. Please consider if you wish to change your vote on WP:TFD now that the template has changed. R adiant _>|< 08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)